Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

What Is To Be Done?

BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

The Spontaneity of the Masses and theConsciousness of the Social-Democrats

We have said that our movement, much more extensive and deep
      than the movement of the seventies, must be inspired with the
      same devoted determination and energy that inspired the movement
      at that time. Indeed, no one, we think, has until now doubted
      that the strength of the present-day movement lies in the
      awakening of the masses (principally, the industrial
      proletariat) and that its weakness lies in the lack of
      consciousness and initiative among the revolutionary leaders.

However, of late a staggering discovery has been made, which
      threatens to disestablish all hitherto prevailing views on this
      question. This discovery was made byRabocheye Dyelo,
      which in its polemic withIskraandZaryadid
      not confine itself to making objections on separate points, but
      tried to ascribe “general disagreements” to a more profound
      cause — to the “different appraisals of therelativeimportance of the spontaneous and consciously ‘methodical’
      element”.Rabocheye Dyeloformulated its indictment as
      a “belittling of the significance of the objective or the
      spontaneous element of development”.[1]To this we say: Had
      the polemics withIskraandZaryaresulted in
      nothing more than causingRabocheye Dyeloto hit upon
      these “general disagreements”, that alone would give us
      considerable satisfaction, so significant is this thesis and so
      clear is the light it sheds on the quintessence of the
      present-day theoretical and political differences that exist
      among Russian Social-Democrats.

For this reason the question of the relation between
      consciousness and spontaneity is of such enormous general
      interest, and for this reason the question must be dealt with in
      great detail.

In the previous chapter we pointed out howuniversallyabsorbed the educated youth of Russia was in the theories
      of Marxism in the middle of the nineties. In the same period the
      strikes that followed the famous St. Petersburg industrial war
      of 1896 assumed a similar general character. Their spread over
      the whole of Russia clearly showed the depth of the newly
      awakening popular movement, and if we are to speak of the
      “spontaneous element” then, of course, it is this strike
      movement which, first and foremost, must be regarded as
      spontaneous. But there is spontaneity and spontaneity. Strikes
      occurred in Russia in the seventies and sixties (and even in the
      first half of the nineteenth century), and they were accompanied
      by the “spontaneous” destruction of machinery, etc. Compared
      with these “revolts”, the strikes of the nineties might even be
      described as “conscious”, to such an extent do they mark the
      progress which the working-class movement made in that
      period. This shows that the “spontaneous element”, in essence,
      represents nothing more nor less than. consciousness in anembryonic form. Even the primitive revolts expressed
      the awakening of consciousness to a certain extent. The workers
      were losing their age-long faith in the permanence of the system
      which oppressed them and began... I shall not say to understand,
      but to sensethe necessity for collective resistance, definitely
      abandoning their slavish submission to the authorities. But this
      was, nevertheless, more in the nature of outbursts of
      desperation and vengeance than ofstruggle. The strikes
      of the nineties revealed far greater flashes of consciousness;
      definite demands were advanced, the strike was carefully timed,
      known cases and instances in other places were discussed,
      etc. The revolts were simply the resistance of the oppressed,
      whereas the systematic strikes represented the class struggle in
      embryo, but only in embryo. Taken by themselves, these strikes
      were simply trade union struggles, not yet Social Democratic
      struggles. They marked the awakening antagonisms between workers
      and employers; but the workers, were not, and could not be,
      conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism of their interests to
      the whole of the modern political and social system, i.e.,
      theirs was not yet Social-Democratic consciousness. In this
      sense, the strikes of the nineties, despite the enormous
      progress they represented as compared with the “revolts”,
      remained a purely spontaneous movement.

We have said thatthere could not have beenSocial-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have
      to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries
      shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is
      able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the
      conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the
      employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary
      labour legislation, etc.[2]The theory of socialism, however,
      grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories
      elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied
      classes, by intellectuals. By their social status the founders
      of modern scientific socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves
      belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia. In the very same way,
      in Russia, the theoretical doctrine of Social-Democracy arose
      altogether independently of the spontaneous growth of the
      working-class movement; it arose as a natural and inevitable
      outcome of the development ofthought among the revolutionary
      socialist intelligentsia. In the period under discussion, the
      middle nineties, this doctrine not only represented the
      completely formulated programme of the Emancipation of Labour
      group, but had already won over to its side the majority of the
      revolutionary youth in Russia.

Hence, we had both the spontaneous awakening of the working
      masses, their awakening to conscious life and conscious
      struggle, and a revolutionary youth, armed with
      Social-Democratic theory and straining towards the workers. In
      this connection it is particularly important to state the
      oft-forgotten (and comparatively little-known) fact that,
      although theearlySocial-Democrats of that periodzealously carried on economic agitation(being guided
      in this activity by the truly useful indications contained in
      the pamphletOn Agitation,[27]then still in manuscript),
      they did not regard this as their sole task. On the contrary,from the very beginningthey set for Russian
      Social-Democracy the most far-reaching historical tasks, in
      general, and the task of overthrowing the autocracy, in
      particular. Thus, towards the end of 1895, the St. Petersburg
      group of Social-Democrats, which founded the League of Struggle
      for the Emancipation of the Working Class, prepared the first
      issue of a newspaper calledRabocheye Dyelo. This issue
      was ready to go to press when it was seized by the gendarmes, on
      the night of December 8, 1895, in a raid on the house of one of
      the members of the group, Anatoly Alexeyevich Vaneyey,[3]so that
      the first edition ofRabocheye Dyelowas not destined
      to see the light of day. The leading article in this issue
      (which perhaps thirty years hence someRusskaya
	  Starina[28]will unearth
	  in the archives of the Department of Police)
      outlined the historical tasks of the working class in Russia and
      placed the achievement of political liberty at their head. The
      issue also contained an article entitled “What Are Our Ministers
      Thinking About?”[4]which dealt
	  with the crushing of theelementary education committees by the police. In addition,
      there was some correspondence from St. Petersburg, and from
      other parts of Russia (e.g., a letter on the massacre of the
      workers in Yaroslavl Gubernia). This, “first effort”, if we are
      not mistaken, of the Russian Social-Democrats of the nineties
      was not a purely local, or less still, “Economic”, newspaper,
      but one that aimed to unite the strike movement with the
      revolutionary movement against the autocracy, and to win over to
      the side of Social-Democracy all who were oppressed by the
      policy of reactionary obscurantism. No one in the slightest
      degree acquainted with the state of the movement at that period
      could doubt that such a paper would have met with warm response
      among the workers of the capital and the revolutionary
      intelligentsia and would have had a wide circulation. The
      failure of the enterprise merely showed that the
      Social-Democrats of that period were unable to meet the
      immediate requirements of the time owing to their lack of
      revolutionary experience and practical training. This must be
      said, too, with regard to theS. Peterburgsky Rabochy
      Listok[29]and
	  particularly with regard to Rabochaya Gazeta and
      theManifestoof the Russian Social-Democratic Labour
      Party, founded in the spring of 1898. Of course, we would not
      dream of blaming the Social Democrats of that time for this
      unpreparedness. But in order to profit from the experience of
      that movement, and to draw practical lessons from it, we must
      thoroughly understand the causes and significance of this or
      that shortcoming. It is therefore highly important to establish
      the fact that a part (perhaps even a majority) of the
      Social-Democrats, active in the period of 1895-98, justly
      considered it possible even then, at the very beginning of the
      “spontaneous” movement, to come forward with a most extensive
      programme and a militant tactical line.[5]Lack of training of
      the majority of the revolutionaries,an entirely natural
      phenomenon, could not have roused any particular fears. Once the
      tasks were correctly defined, once the energy existed for
      repeated attempts to fulfil them, temporary failures represented
      only part misfortune. Revolutionary experience and
      organisational skill are things that can be acquired, provided
      the desire is there to acquire them, provided the shortcomings
      are recognised, which in revolutionary activity is more than
      half-way towards their removal.

But what was only part misfortune became full misfortune when
      this consciousness began to grow dim (it was very much alive
      among the members of the groups mentioned), when there appeared
      people—and even Social -Democratic organs—that were
      prepared to regard shortcomings as virtues, that even tried to
      invent atheoreticalbasis for theirslavish
      cringing before spontaneity. It is time to draw conclusions
      from this trend, the content of which is incorrectly and too
      narrowly characterised as Economism.

Before dealing with the literary manifestation of this
      subservience to spontaneity, we should like to note the
      following characteristic fact (communicated to us from the
      above-mentioned source), which throws light on the conditions in
      which the two future conflicting trends in Russian
      Social-Democracy arose and grew among the comrades working in
      St. Petersburg. In the beginning of 1897, just prior to their
      banishment, A. A. Vaneyev and several of his comrades attended a
      private meeting[30]at which “old” 
	  and “young” members of the League
      of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class
      gathered. The conversation centred chiefly about the question of
      organisation, particularly about the “rules for the workers’
      mutual benefit fund”, which, intheir final form, were published in“Listok”
	  Rabotnika,[31]No. 9-10, p. 46. Sharp
      differences immediately showed themselves between the  “old”
      members (“Decembrists”, as the St. Petersburg Social Democrats
      jestingly called them) and several the “young” members (who
      subsequently took an active part in the work ofRabochaya
      Mysl), with a heated discussion ensuing. The “young”
      members defended the main principles of the rules in the form in
      which they were published. The “old” members contended that the
      prime necessity was not this, but the consolidation of the
      League of Struggle into an organisation of revolutionaries to
      which all the various workers’ mutual benefit funds, students’
      propaganda circles, etc., should be subordinated. It goes
      without saying that the disputing sides far from realised at the
      time that these disagreements were the beginning of a cleavage;
      on the contrary, they regarded them as something isolated and
      casual. But this fact shows that in Russia, too, Economism did
      not arise and spread without a struggle against the “old”
      Social-Democrats (which the Economists of today are apt to
      forget). And if, in the main, this struggle has not left
      “documentary” traces behind it, it issolelybecause
      the membership of the circles then functioning underwent such
      constant change that no continuity was established and,
      consequently, differences in point of view were not recorded in
      any documents.

The founding ofRabochaya Myslbrought Economism to the
      light of day, but not at one stroke. We must picture to
      ourselves concretely the conditions for activity and the
      short-lived character of the majority of the Russian study
      circles (a thing that is possible only for those who have
      themselves experienced it) in order to understand how much there
      was of the fortuitous in the successes and failures of the new
      trend in various towns, and the length of time during which
      neither the advocates nor the opponents of the “new” could make
      up their minds — and literally had no opportunity of so doing
      — as to whether this really expressed a distinct trend or
      merely the lack of training of certain individuals. For example,
      the first mimeographed copies ofRabochaya Myslnever
      reached the great majority of Social-Democrats, and if we are
      able to refer to the leading article in the first number, it is
      only because it was reproduced in an article byV. I.[32](“Listok” Rabotnika, No. 9-10, p. 47, et seq.),
      who, of course, did not fail to extol with more zeal than reason
      the new paper, which was so different from the papers and
      projects for papers mentioned above.[6]It is well worth
      dwelling on this leading article because it brings out in bold
      reliefthe entire spirit of Rabochaya Mysland
      Economism generally.

After stating that the arm of the
	  “blue-coats”[7]could never halt
      the progress of the working-class movement, the leading article
      goes on to say: “. . . The virility of the working-class
      movement is due to the fact that the workers themselves are at
      last taking their fate into their own hands, and out of the
      hands of the leaders”; this fundamental thesis is then developed
      in greater detail. Actually, the leaders (i.e., the
      Social-Democrats, the organisers of the League of Struggle)
      were, one might say, torn out of the hands of the workers[8]by the
      police; yet it is made to appear that the workers were fighting
      against the leaders and liberated themselves from their yoke!
      Instead of sounding the call to go forward towards the
      consolidation of the revolutionary organisation and the
      expansion of political activity, the call was issued for aretreatto the purely trade union struggle. It was
      announced that “the economic basis of the movement is eclipsed
      by the effort never to forget the political ideal”, and that the
      watchword for the working-class movement was “Struggle for
      economic conditions” (!) or, better still, “The workers for the
      workers”. It was declared that strike funds “are more valuable
      to the movement than a hundred other Organisations” (compare
      this statement made in October 1897, with thepolemic between
      the “Decembrists” and the young members in the beginning of
      1897), etc. Catchwords like “We must concentrate, not on the
      ’cream’ of the workers, but on the ’average’, mass worker”;
      “Politics always obediently follows economics”,[9]etc., etc., became
      the fashion, exercising an irresistible influence upon the
      masses of the youth who were attracted to the movement but who,
      in the majority of cases, were acquainted only with such
      fragments of Marxism as were expounded in legally appearing
      publications.

Political consciousness was completely overwhelmed by
      spontaneity — the spontaneity of the “Social-Democrats” who
      repeated Mr. V. V.’s “ideas”, the spontaneity of those workers
      who were carried away by the arguments that a kopek added to a
      ruble was worth more than any socialism or politics, and that
      they must “fight, knowing that they are fighting, not for the
      sake of some future generation, but for themselves and their
      children” (leader inRabochaya Mysl, No. 1). Phrases
      like these have always been a favourite weapon of the
      West-European bourgeois, who, in their hatred for socialism,
      strove (like the German “Sozial-Politiker” Hirsch) to
      transplant English trade-unionism to their native soil and to
      preach to the workers that by engaging in the purely trade union
      struggle[10]they would be
	  fighting for themselves and for their
      children, and not for some future generations with some future
      socialism. And now the “V. V.s of Russian Social-Democracy” have
      set about repeating these bourgeois phrases. It is important at
      this point to note three circumstances that will be useful to
      our further analysis ofcontemporarydifferences.[11][11]We emphasise the wordcontemporaryfor the benefit of
      those who may pharisaically shrug their shoulders and say: It is
      easy enough to attackRabochaya Myslnow, but is not
      all this ancient history?Mutato nomine de te fabula
      narratur(change the name and the tale isabout you—Ed.)
      is our answer to such contemporary Pharisees, whose complete
      subjection to the ideas of Rabochaya Mysl will beprovedfurther on. —Lenin

In the first place, the overwhelming of political consciousness
      by spontaneity, to which we referred above, also took placespontaneously. This may sound like a pun, but, alas, it
      is the bitter truth. It did not take place as a result of an
      open struggle between two diametrically opposed points of view,
      in which one triumphed over the other; it occurred because of
      the fact that an increasing number of “old” revolutionaries were
      “torn away” by the gendarmes and increasing numbers of “young”
      “V. V.s of Russian Social Democracy” appeared on the
      scene. Everyone, who has, I shall not say participated in, but
      at least breathed the atmosphere of, thepresent-dayRussian movement, knows perfectly well that this is precisely
      the case. And if, nevertheless, we insist strongly that the
      reader be fully clear on this generally known fact, if we cite,
      for explicitness, as it were, the facts of the first edition ofRabocheye Dyeloand of the polemic between the “old”
      and the “young” at the beginning of 1897, we do this because the
      people who vaunt their “democracy” speculate on the ignorance of
      these facts on the part of the broad public (or of the very
      young generation). We shall return to this point further on.

Secondly, in the very first literary expression of Economism we
      observe the exceedingly curious phenomenon — highly
      characteristic for an understanding of all the differences
      prevailing among presentday Social Democrats — that the
      adherents of the “labour movement pure and simple”, worshippers
      of the closest “organic” contacts (Rabocheye Dyelo’s
      term) with the proletarian struggle, opponents of any non-worker
      intelligentsia (even a socialist intelligentsia), are compelled,
      in order to defend their positions, to resort to the arguments
      of thebourgeois“pure trade-unionists”. This shows
      that from the very outsetRabochaya Myslbegan —
      unconsciously — to implement the programme of theCredo. This shows (somethingRabocheye Dyelocannot grasp) thatallworship of the spontaneity of
      the working class movement, all belittling of the role of “the
      conscious element”, of the role of Social-Democracy,means,
      quite independently of whether he who belittles that role
      desires it or not, a strengtheningof the influence of bourgeois
      ideology upon the workers.All those who talk about
      “overrating the importance of ideology”,[12]about exaggerating
      the role of the conscious element,[13]etc., imagine that
      the labour movement pure and simple can elaborate, and will
      elaborate, an independent ideology for itself, if only the
      workers “wrest their fate from the hands of the leaders”. But
      this is a profound mistake. To supplement what has been said
      above, we shall quote the following profoundly true and
      important words of Karl. Kautsky on the new draft programme of
      the Austrian Social-Democratic Party:[14]

“Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that
      economic development and the class struggle create, not only the
      conditions for socialist production, but also, and directly, theconsciousness[K. K.’s italics] of its necessity. And
      these critics assert that England, the country most highly
      developed capitalistically, is more remote than any other from
      this consciousness Judging by the draft, one might assume that
      this allegedly orthodox Marxist view, which is thus refuted, was
      shared by the committee that drafted the Austrian programme. In
      the draft programme it is stated: ‘The more capitalist
      development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more
      the proletariat is compelled and becomes fit to fight against
      capitalism. The proletariat becomes conscious of the possibility
      and of the necessity for socialism.’ In this connection socialist
      consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the
      proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of
      course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern
      economic relationships just as the class struggle of the
      proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle
      against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the
      masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side
      and not one out of the other; each arises under different
      conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the
      basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic
      science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say,
      modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the
      one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so;
      both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of
      science is not the proletariat, but thebourgeois
      intelligentsia[K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of
      individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
      originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more
      intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn,
      introduce it into the proletarian class struggle whereconditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness
      is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from
      without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something
      that arose within it spontaneously
      [urwüchsig]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld
      programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy
      is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the
      proletariat) with theconsciousnessof its position and
      the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this
      if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle. The
      new draft copied this proposition from the old programme, and
      attached it to the proposition mentioned above. But this
      completely broke the line of thought...”

“Many of our revisionist critics believe that Marx asserted that
      economic development and the class struggle create, not only the
      conditions for socialist production, but also, and directly, theconsciousness[K. K.’s italics] of its necessity. And
      these critics assert that England, the country most highly
      developed capitalistically, is more remote than any other from
      this consciousness Judging by the draft, one might assume that
      this allegedly orthodox Marxist view, which is thus refuted, was
      shared by the committee that drafted the Austrian programme. In
      the draft programme it is stated: ‘The more capitalist
      development increases the numbers of the proletariat, the more
      the proletariat is compelled and becomes fit to fight against
      capitalism. The proletariat becomes conscious of the possibility
      and of the necessity for socialism.’ In this connection socialist
      consciousness appears to be a necessary and direct result of the
      proletarian class struggle. But this is absolutely untrue. Of
      course, socialism, as a doctrine, has its roots in modern
      economic relationships just as the class struggle of the
      proletariat has, and, like the latter, emerges from the struggle
      against the capitalist-created poverty and misery of the
      masses. But socialism and the class struggle arise side by side
      and not one out of the other; each arises under different
      conditions. Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the
      basis of profound scientific knowledge. Indeed, modern economic
      science is as much a condition for socialist production as, say,
      modern technology, and the proletariat can create neither the
      one nor the other, no matter how much it may desire to do so;
      both arise out of the modern social process. The vehicle of
      science is not the proletariat, but thebourgeois
      intelligentsia[K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of
      individual members of this stratum that modern socialism
      originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more
      intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn,
      introduce it into the proletarian class struggle whereconditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness
      is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from
      without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something
      that arose within it spontaneously
      [urwüchsig]. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld
      programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy
      is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the
      proletariat) with theconsciousnessof its position and
      the consciousness of its task. There would be no need for this
      if consciousness arose of itself from the class struggle. The
      new draft copied this proposition from the old programme, and
      attached it to the proposition mentioned above. But this
      completely broke the line of thought...”

Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated
      by the working masses themselves in the process of their
      movement,[15][15]This
      does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in
      creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as
      workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and
      Weitlings; in other words, they take part only when they are
      able, and to the extent that they are able, more or less, to
      acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that
      knowledge. But in order that working menmay succeed in this
      more often, every effort must be made to raise the level of
      the consciousness of the workers in general; it is necessary
      that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially
      restricted limits of  “literature for workers” but that
      they learn to an increasing degree to mastergeneral
      literature. It would be even truer to say “are not
      confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the
      workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written
      for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals
      believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things
      about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and
      over again what has long been known. —Leninthe only choice is — either
      bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for
      mankind has not created a “third” ideology, and, moreover, in a
      society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class
      or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist
      ideologyin any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest
      degreemeans to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is
      much talk of spontaneity. But thespontaneousdevelopment of the working-class movement leads to its
      subordination to bourgeois ideology,to its development
      along the lines of the Credo programme;for the spontaneous
      working-class movement is trade-unionism, isNur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and trade unionism means the
      ideological enslavement of the workers by the
      bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, isto combat spontaneity, to divertthe working-class
      movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to comeunder the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the
      wing of revolutionary Social Democracy. The sentence employed by
      the authors of the Economist letter published inIskra,
      No. 12, that the efforts of the most inspired ideologists fail
      to divert the working-class movement from the path that is
      determined by the interaction of the material elements and the
      material environment is thereforetantamount to renouncing
      socialism. If these authors were capable of fearlessly,
      consistently, and thoroughly considering what they say, as
      everyone who enters the arena of literary and public activity
      should be, there would be nothing left for them but to “fold
      their useless arms over their empty breasts” and surrender the
      field of action to the Struves and Prokopoviches, who are
      dragging the working-class movement “along the line of least
      resistance”, i.e., along the line of bourgeois trade-unionism,
      or to the Zubatovs, who are dragging it along the line of
      clerical and gendarme “ideology”.

Let us recall the example of Germany. What was the historic
      service Lassalle rendered to the German working-class movement?
      It was that hedivertedthat movement from the path of
      progressionist trade-unionism and co-operativism towards which
      it had been spontaneously moving (with the benign assistance
      of Schulze-Delitzsch and his like). To fulfil such a task
      it was necessary to do something quite different from talking of
      underrating the spontaneous element, of tactics-as-process, of
      the interaction between elements and environment, etc.A
      fierce struggle against spontaneitywas necessary, and only
      after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it
      possible, for instance, to convert the working population of
      Berlin from a bulwark of the progressionist party into one of
      the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This struggle is by
      no means over even today (as might seem to those who learn the
      history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its
      philosophy from Struve). Even now the German working class is,
      so to speak, split up among a number of ideologies. A section of
      the workers is organised in Catholic and monarchist trade
      unions; another section is organised in the
	  Hirsch-Duncker[33]unions, founded by the bourgeois worshippers of English
      trade-unionism; the third is organised in Social-Democratic
      trade unions. The last-named group is immeasurably more numerous
      than the rest,but the Social-Democratic ideology was able to
      achieve this superiority, and will be able to maintain it, only
      in an unswerving struggle against all other ideologies.

But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the
      movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the
      domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that
      bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist
      ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at
      its disposalimmeasurablymore means of
      dissemination.[16][16]It is often said that the working classspontaneouslygravitates towards socialism. This is perfectly true in the
      sense that socialist theory reveals the causes of the misery of
      the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any
      other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to
      assimilate it so easily,provided, however, this theory
      does not itself yield to spontaneity,providedit
      subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for
      granted, but it is precisely this whichRabocheye Dyeloforgets or distorts. The working class spontaneously gravitates
      towards socialism; nevertheless, most widespread (and
      continuously and diversely revived) bourgeois ideology
      spontaneously imposes itself upon the working class to a still
      greater degree. —LeninAnd the younger the socialist
      movement in any given country, the more vigorously it must
      struggle against all attempts to entrench non-socialist
      ideology, and the more resolutely the workers must be warned
      against the bad counsellors who shout against “overrating the
      conscious element”, etc. The authors of the Economist letter, in
      unison withRabocheye Dyelo, inveigh against the
      intolerance that is characteristic of the infancy of the
      movement. To this we reply: Yes, our movement is indeed in its
      infancy, and in order that it may grow up faster, it must become
      imbued with intolerance against those who retard its growth by
      their subservience to spontaneity. Nothing is so ridiculous and
      harmful as pretending that we are “old hands” who have long 
	  ago experienced all the decisive stages of the struggle.

Thirdly, the first issue of Rabochaya Mysl shows that the term
      “Economism” (which, of course, we do not propose to abandon,
      since, in one way or another, this designation has already
      established itself) does not adequately convey the real
      character of the new trend.Rabochaya Mysldoes not
      altogether repudiate the political struggle; the rules for a
      workers’ mutual benefit fund published in its first issue
      containa reference to combating the government.Rabochaya
      Myslbelieves, however, that “politics always obediently
      follows economics” (Rabocheye Dyelovaries this thesis
      when it asserts in its programme that “in Russia more than in
      any other country, the economic struggle isinseparablefrom the political struggle”).If by politics is meant
      Social-Democratic politics,then the theses of Rabochaya
      Mysl andRabocheye Dyeloare utterly incorrect. The
      economic struggle of the workers is very often connected
      (although not inseparably) with bourgeois politics, clerical
      politics, etc., as we have seen.Rabocheye Dyelo’s
      theses are correct, if by politics is meant trade union
      politics, viz., the common striving of all workers to secure
      from the government measures for alleviating the distress to
      which their condition gives rise, but which do not abolish that
      condition, i.e., which do not remove the subjection of labour to
      capital. That striving indeed is common to the English
      trade-unionists, who are hostile to socialism, to the Catholic
      workers, to the “Zubatov” workers, etc. There is politics and
      politics. Thus, we see thatRabochaya Mysldoes not so
      much deny the political struggle, as it bows to itsspontaneity, to its unconsciousness. While fully
      recognising the political struggle (better: the political
      desires and demands of the workers), which arises spontaneously
      from the working-class movement itself, it absolutely refusesindependently to work outa specificallySocial-Democratic politicscorresponding to the general
      tasks of socialism and to present-day conditions in
      Russia. Further on we shall show thatRabocheye Dyelocommits the same error.

We have dealt at such length with the little-known and now
      almost forgotten leading article in the first issue of Rabochaya
      Mysl because it was the first and most striking expression of
      that general stream of thought which afterwards emerged into the
      light of day in innumerable streamlets. V. I. was perfectly
      right when, in praising the first issue and the leading article
      ofRabochaya Mysl, he said that the article had been
      written in a “sharp and fervent” manner (“Listok”
      Rabotnika, No. 9-10, p. 49). Every man with convictions whothinks he has something new to say writes “fervently” and in
      such a way as to make his views stand out in bold relief. Only
      those who are accustomed to sitting between two stools lack
      “fervour”; only such people are able to praise the fervour ofRabochaya Myslone day and attack the “fervent
      polemics” of its opponents the next.

We shall not dwell on the“Separate Supplement” to
      Rabochaya Mysl(below we shall have occasion, on various
      points, to refer to this work, which expresses the ideas of the
      Economists more consistently than any other) but shall briefly
      mention the “Appeal of the Self-Emancipation of the Workers
      Group” (March 1899, reprinted in the LondonNakanune,[35]No. 7, July 1899). The authors of the “Appeal” rightly say that
      “the workers of Russia areonly just awakening,are
      just beginning to look about them, and areinstinctively
      clutching at the first available means of struggle”. Yet
      they draw from this the same false conclusion as that drawn byRabochaya Mysl, forgetting that the instinctive is the
      unconscious (the spontaneous) to the aid of which socialists
      must come; that the “first available means of struggle” will
      always be, in modern society, the trade union means of struggle,
      and the “first available” ideology the bourgeois (trade union)
      ideology. Similarly, these authors do not  “repudiate” politics,
      they merely (merely!) echo Mr. V. V. that politics is the
      superstructure, and therefore, “political agitation must be the
      superstructure to the agitation carried on in favour of the
      economic struggle; it must arise on the basis of this struggle
      and follow in its wake”.

As forRabocheye Dyelo, it began its activity with the
      “defence” of the Economists. It stated adownright
      untruthin its opening issue (No. 1, pp. 141-42) in
      claiming that it “does not know to which young comrades Axelrod
      referred” when he warned the Economists in his well-known
      pamphlet.[17]In the 
	  polemic that flared up with Axelrod and Plekhanov over this untruth,Rabocheye Dyelohad to admit that “in form of perplexity, 
	  it soughtto defendall the younger Social-Democrats abroad from
      this unjust accusation” (the charge of narrowness levelled by
      Axelrod at the Economists). In reality this accusation wascompletely justified, andRabocheye Dyeloknew
      perfectly well that, among others, it applied also to V. I., a
      member of its Editorial Board. Let me note in passing that in
      this polemic Axelrod was entirely right andRabocheye
      Dyeloentirely wrong in their respective interpretations of
      my pamphletThe Tasks of the Russian
      Social-Democrats.[18]The pamphlet
      was written in 1897, before the appearance ofRabochaya Mysl,
      when I thought, rightly, that theoriginal tendencyof
      the St. Petersburg League of Struggle, which I characterised
      above, was dominant. And this tendency was dominant at least
      until the middle of 1898. Consequently,Rabocheye Dyelohad no right whatever, in its attempt to deny the existence and
      danger of Economism, to refer to a pamphlet that expressed viewsforced outby Economist views in St. Petersburg in
      1897-98.[19]

ButRabocheye Dyelonot only “defended” the Economists,
      it itself constantly fell into their fundamental errors. The
      source of this confusion is to be found in the ambiguity of the
      interpretation given to the following thesis of theRabocheye Dyeloprogramme: “We consider that the most
      important phenomenon of Russian life, the one that will mainlydetermine the tasks[our italics] and the character of
      the publication activity of the Union, is themass
      working-class movement[Rabocheye Dyelo’s italics]
      which has arisen in recent years.” That the mass movement is a
      most important phenomenon is a fact not to be disputed. But the
      crux of the matter is, how is one to understand the statement
      that the mass working class movement will “determine the tasks”?It may be interpreted in one of two ways.Eitherit means bowing to the
      spontaneity of this movement, i.e., reducing the role of Social-Democracy
      to mere subservience to the working-class movement as such (the
      interpretation ofRabochaya Mysl, the Self-Emancipation Group,
      and other Economists), or it means that the mass movement places before us
      new theoretical, political, and organisational tasks, far more complicated
      than those that might have satisfied us in the period before the rise of
      the mass movement.Rabocheye Dyeloinclined and still inclines
      towards the first interpretation, for it has said nothing definite about
      any new tasks, but has argued constantly as though the “mass movement”relievesus of the necessity of clearly understanding and
      fulfilling the tasks it sets before us. We need only point out thatRabocheye Dyeloconsidered that it was impossible to set the
      overthrow of the autocracy as thefirsttask of the mass
      working-class movement, and that it degraded this task (in the name of the
      mass movement) to that of a struggle for immediate political demands
      (Reply, p. 25).

We shall pass over the article by B. Krichevsky, editor ofRabocheye Dyelo, entitled “The Economic and the
      Political Struggle in the Russian Movement”, published in No. 7
      of that paper, in which these very mistakes[20]are repeated, andproceed directly toRabocheye Dyelo, No. 10. We shall
      not, of course, enter in detail into the various objections
      raised by Krichevsky and Martynov againstZaryaandIskra. We are here interested solely in the basis of
      principles on whichRabocheye Dyelo, in its tenth
      issue, took its stand. Thus, we shall not examine the strange
      fact thatRabocheye Dyelosaw a “diametrical
      contradiction” between the proposition:

“Social-Democracy does not, tie its hands, it does not restrict
      its activities to some one preconceived plan or method of
      political struggle; it recognises all means of struggle  as long
      as they correspond to the forces at-the disposal of the Party,”
      etc. (Iskra, No. 1)[21].

“Social-Democracy does not, tie its hands, it does not restrict
      its activities to some one preconceived plan or method of
      political struggle; it recognises all means of struggle  as long
      as they correspond to the forces at-the disposal of the Party,”
      etc. (Iskra, No. 1)[21].

and the proposition:

“Without a strong organisation skilled in waging political
      struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be
      no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm
      principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of
      the name of tactics” (Iskra, No. 4).[22]

“Without a strong organisation skilled in waging political
      struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be
      no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm
      principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of
      the name of tactics” (Iskra, No. 4).[22]

To confound recognition,in principle, of all means of
      struggle, of all plans and methods, provided they are expedient,
      with the demandat a given political momentto be
      guided by a strictly observed plan is tantamount, if we are to
      talk of tactics, to confounding the recognition by medical
      science of various methods of treating diseases with the
      necessity for adopting a certain definite method of treatment
      for a given disease. The point is, however, thatRabocheye
      Dyelo, itself the victim of a disease which we have called
      bowing to spontaneity, refuses to recognise any “method of
      treatment” for that disease. Hence, it has made the remarkable
      discovery that “tactics-as-plan contradicts the fundamental
      spirit of Marxism” (No. 10, p. 18), that tactics are “a
      process of growth of Party tasks, which grow together with the
      Party” (p. 11,Rabocheye Dyelo’s italics). This
      remarkhas every chance of becoming a celebrated maxim, a
      permanent monument to theRabocheye Dyelo“trend”. To
      the question, whither? the leading organ replies: Movement is a
      process of changing the distance between the starting-point and
      subsequent points of the movement. This matchless example of
      profundity is not merely a curiosity (were it that, it would not
      be worth dealing with at length), butthe programme of a
      whole trend, the very programme which R. M. (in the
      “Separate Supplement” toRabochaya Mysl)
      expressed in the words: That struggle is desirable which is
      possible, and the struggle which is possible is that which is
      going on at the given moment. This is precisely the trend of
      unbounded opportunism, which passively adapts itself to
      spontaneity.

“Tactics-as-plan contradicts the essence of Marxism!” But this
      is a slander of Marxism; it means turning Marxism into the
      caricature held up by the Narodniks in their struggle against
      us. It means belittling the initiative and energy of
      class-conscious fighters, whereas Marxism, on the contrary,
      gives a gigantic impetus to the initiative and energy of the
      Social-Democrat, opens up for him the widest perspectives, and
      (if one may so express it) places at his disposal the mighty
      force of many millions of workers “spontaneously” rising for the
      struggle. The entire history of international Social-Democracy
      teems with plans advanced now by one, now by another political
      leader, some confirming the far-sightedness and the correct
      political and organisational views of their authors and others
      revealing their short-sightedness and their political errors. At
      the time when Germany was at one of the crucial turning-points
      in its history — the formation of the Empire, the opening of
      the Reichstag, and the granting of universal suffrage —
      Liebknecht had one plan for Social-Democratic politics and work
      in general, and Schweitzer had another. When the anti-socialist
      law came down on the heads of the German socialists, Most and
      Hasselmann had one plan — they were prepared then and there to
      call for violence and terror; Hochbert, Schramm, and (partly)
      Bernstein had another — they began to preach to the
      Social-Democrats that they themselves had provoked the enactment
      of the law by being unreasonably bitter and revolutionary, and
      must now earn forgiveness by their exemplary conduct. There wasyet a third plan, proposed by those who prepared and carried out
      the publication of an illegal organ. It is easy, of course, with
      hindsight, many years after the struggle over the selection of
      the path to be followed, and after history has pronounced its
      verdict as to the expediency of the path selected, to utter
      profound maxims about the growth of Party tasks, which grow
      together with the Party. But at a time of confusion,[23]when
      the Russian “Critics” and Economists are degrading
      Social-Democracy to the level of trade-unionism, and when the
      terrorists are strongly advocating the adoption of
      “tactics-as-plan” that repeats the old mistakes, at such a time,
      to confine oneself to profundities of this kind, means simply to
      issue to oneself a “certificate of poverty”. At a time when many
      Russian Social-Democrats suffer from a lack of initiative and
      energy, from an inadequate “scope of political propaganda,
      agitation, and organisation,”[24]from
	  a lack of “plans” for a
      broader organisation of revolutionary work, at such a time, to
      declare that “tactics-as-plan” contradicts the essence of
      Marxism means not only to vulgarise Marxism in the realm of
      theory, butto drag the Party backwardin practice.

Rabocheye Dyelogoes on to sermonise:

“The task of the revolutionary Social-Democrat is only to
      accelerate objective development by his conscious work, not to
      obviate it or substitute his own subjective plans for this
      development.Iskraknows all this in theory; but the
      enormous importance which Marxism justly attaches to conscious
      revolutionary work causes it in practice, owing to its
      doctrinaire view of tactics,to belittle the significance of
      the objective or the spontaneous element of development”(p. 18).

“The task of the revolutionary Social-Democrat is only to
      accelerate objective development by his conscious work, not to
      obviate it or substitute his own subjective plans for this
      development.Iskraknows all this in theory; but the
      enormous importance which Marxism justly attaches to conscious
      revolutionary work causes it in practice, owing to its
      doctrinaire view of tactics,to belittle the significance of
      the objective or the spontaneous element of development”(p. 18).

Another example of the extraordinary theoretical confusion
      worthy of Mr. V. V. and his fraternity. We would ask our
      philosopher: how may a designer of subjective plans “belittle”
      objective development? Obviously by losing sight of the fact
      that this objective development creates or strengthens, destroysor weakens certain classes, strata, or groups, certain nations
      or groups of nations, etc., and in this way serves to determine
      a given international political alignment of forces, or the
      position adopted by revolutionary parties, etc. If the designer
      of plans did that, his guilt would not be that he belittled the
      spontaneous element, but, on the contrary, that he belittled theconsciouselement, for he would then show that he
      lacked the “consciousness” properly to understand objective
      development. Hence, the very talk of “estimating therelativesignificance” (Rabocheye Dyelo’s
      italics) of spontaneity and consciousness itself reveals a
      complete lack of “consciousness”. If certain “spontaneous
      elements of development” can be grasped at all by human
      understanding, then an incorrect estimation of them will be
      tantamount to “belittling the conscious element”. But if they
      cannot be grasped, then we do not know them, and therefore
      cannot speak of them. What then is Krichevsky discussing? If he
      thinks thatIskra’s  “subjective plans” are 
	  erroneous (as he in fact declares them to be), he should have shown what
      objective facts they ignore, and only then chargedIskrawithlacking political consciousnessfor
      ignoring them, with “belittling the conscious element”, to use
      his own words. If, however, displeased with subjective plans, he
      can bring forward no argument other than that of “belittling the
      spontaneous element” (!), he merely shows: (1) that,
      theoretically, he understands Marxisma laKareyev and
      Mikhailovsky, who have been sufficiently ridiculed by
	  Beltov;[36]and 
	  (2) that, practically, he is quite satisfied with the
      “spontaneous elements of development” that have drawn our legal
      Marxists towards Bernsteinism and our Social-Democrats towards
      Economism, and that he is “full of wrath” against those who have
      determined at all coststo divertRussian
      Social-Democracy from the path of “spontaneous” development.

Further, there follow things that are positively droll. “Just as
      human beings will reproduce in the old-fashioned way despite all
      the discoveries of natural science, so the birth of a new social
      order will come about, in the future too,mainlyas a
      result of elemental outbursts, despite all the discoveries of
      social science and the increase in the number of conscious
      fighters” (p. 19). Just as our grandfathers intheir old-fashioned wisdom used to say, Anyone can 
	  bring children into the world, so today the
      “modern socialists” (a laNartsis
	  Tuporylov)[37]say in
      their wisdom, Anyone can participate in the spontaneous birth of
      a new social order. We too hold that anyone can. All that is
      required for participation of that kind isto yieldto
      Economism when Economism reigns and to terrorism when terrorism
      arises. Thus, in the spring of this year, when it was so
      important to utter a note of warning against infatuation with
      terrorism,Rabocheye Dyelostood in amazement,
      confronted by a problem that was “new” to it. And now, six
      months after, when the problem has become less topical, it
      presents us at one and the same time with the declaration: “We
      think that it is not and should not be the task of
      Social-Democracy to counteract the rise of terroristic
      sentiments” (Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, p. 23), and with
      the Conference resolution: “The Conference regards systematic
      and aggressive terror as being inopportune” (Two
      Conferences, p. 18). How beautifully clear and coherent
      this is! Not to counteract, but to declare inopportune, and to
      declare it in such a way that unsystematic and defensive terror
      does not come within the scope of the “resolution”. It must be
      admitted that such a resolution is extremely safe and is fully
      insured against error, just as a man who talks, but says
      nothing, insures himself against error. All that is needed to
      frame such a resolution is  an ability to keepat the tail
      endof the movement. WhenIskraridiculedRabocheye Dyelofor declaring the question of terror to
      be new,[25]the 
	  latter angrily accusedIskraof “having the incredible effrontery to impose
      upon the Party organisation solutions of tactical questions
      proposed by a group of emigrant writers more than fifteen years
      ago” (p. 24). Effrontery. indeed, and what an overestimation of
      the conscious element — first to resolve questions
      theoretically beforehand, and then to try to convince the
      organisation, the Party, and the masses of the correctness of
      this solution![26]How much better
	  it would be to repeat the elements and, without “imposing” 
	  anything upon anybody, swing with every“turn” — whether in the direction of
      Economism or in the direction of terrorism.Rabocheye
      Dyeloeven generalises this great precept of worldly wisdom
      and accusesIskraandZaryaof  “setting up
      their programme against the movement, like a spirit hovering
      over the formless chaos” (p. 29). But what else is the function
      of Social-Democracy if not to be a “spirit” that not only hovers
      over the spontaneous movement, but alsoraisesthis
      movementto the level of “its programme”?Surely, it is
      not its function to drag at thetailof the
      movement. At best, this would be of no service to the movement;
      at worst, it would be exceedingly harmful.Rabocheye
      Dyelo, however, not only follows this “tactics-as-process”,
      but elevates it to a principle, so that it would be more correct
      to describe its tendency not as opportunism, but astail-ism(from the wordtail). And it must be
      admitted that those who are determined always to follow behind
      the movement and be its tail are absolutely and forever
      guaranteed against “belittling the spontaneous element of
      development”.

And so, we have become convinced that the fundamental error
      committed by the “new trend” in Russian Social-Democracy is its
      bowing to spontaneity and its failure to understand that the
      spontaneity of the masses demands a high degree of consciousness
      from us Social-Democrats. The greater the spontaneous upsurge of
      the masses and the more widespread the movement, the more rapid,
      incomparably so, the demand for greater consciousness in the
      theoretical, political and organisational work of
      Social-Democracy.

The spontaneous upsurge of the masses in Russia proceeded (and
      continues) with such rapidity that the young Social Democrats
      proved unprepared to meet these gigantic tasks. This
      unpreparedness is our common misfortune, the misfortune ofallRussian Social-Democrats. The upsurge of the masses
      proceeded and spread with uninterrupted continuity; it not only
      continued in the places where it began, but spread to new
      localities and to new strata of the population (under the
      influence of the working class movement, there was a renewed
      ferment among the student youth, among the intellectuals
      generally, and even among the peasantry). Revolutionaries,however,lagged behindthis upsurge, both in their
      “theories” and in their activity; they failed to establish a
      constant and continuous organisation capable ofleadingthe whole movement.

In Chapter I, we established thatRabocheye Dyelobelittled our theoretical tasks and that it “spontaneously”
      repeated the fashionable catchword “freedom of criticism”; those
      who repeated this catchword lacked the “consciousness” to
      understand that the positions of the opportunist “Critics” and
      those of the revolutionaries in Germany and in Russia are
      diametrically opposed.

In the following chapters, we shall show how this bowing to
      spontaneity found expression in the sphere of the political
      tasks and in the organisational work of Social-Democracy.

[1]Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10, September 1901,
    pp. 17-18.Rabocheye Dyelo’s italics.—Lenin

[2]Trade-unionism does not exclude “politics” altogether, as some
    imagine. Trade unions have always conducted some political (but
    not Social-Democratic) agitation and struggle. We shall deal
    with the difference between trade union politics and
    Social-Democratic politics in the next chapter.—Lenin

[3]A. A. Vaneyev died in Eastern Siberia in 1899 from consumption,
    which he contracted during solitary confinement in prison prior
    to his banishment. That is why we considered it possible to
    publish the above information, the authenticity of which we
    guarantee, for it comes from persons who were closely and
    directly acquainted with A. A. Vaneyev.—Lenin

[4]See present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 87-92.—Ed.

[5]“In
    adopting a hostile attitude towards the activities of the
    Social-Democrats of the late nineties,Iskraignores
    the absence at that time of conditions for any work other than
    the struggle for petty demands,” declare the Economists in their
    “Letter to Russian Social-Democratic Organs” (IskraNo. 12). The facts given above show that the assertion about
    “absence of conditions”is diametrically opposed to the
    truth.Not only at the end, but even in the mid-nineties,
    all the conditions existed for other work, besides the struggle
    for petty demands — all the conditions except adequate training
    of leaders. Instead of frankly admitting that we, theideologists, the leaders, lacked sufficient training — the
      Economists seek to shift the blame entirely upon the “absence of
      conditions”, upon the effect of material environment that
      determines the road from which no ideologist will be able to
      divert the movement. What is this but slavish cringing before
      spontaneity, what but the infatuation of the “ideologists” with
      their own shortcomings?—Lenin

[6]It should be stated in passing that the praise ofRabochaya
    Myslin November 1898, when Economism had become fully
    defined, especially abroad, emanated from the selfsame V. I, who
    very soon after became one of the editors ofRabocheye
    Dyelo. And yetRabocheye Dyelodenied that there
    were two trends in Russian Social-Democracy, and continues to
    deny It to this day!—Lenin

[7]The tsarist gendarmes wore blue uniforms.—Tr.

[8]That this simile is a correct one is shown by the following
    characteristic fact. When, after the arrest of the
    “Decembrists”, the news spread among the workers of the
    Schlüsselburg Highway that the discovery and arrest were
    facilitated by anagent provocateur, N. N. Mikhailov, a
    dentist, who had been in contact with a group associated with
    the “Decembrists”, the workers were so enraged that they decided
    to kill him.—Lenin

[9]These quotations are taken from the same leading article in the first
    number ofRabochaya Mysl. One can judge from this the
    degree of theoretical training possessed by these “V. V.s of
    Russian Social-Democracy”,[38]who kept repeating the crude
    vulgarisation of “economic materialism” at a time when the
    Marxists were carrying on a literary war against the real
    Mr. V. V., who had long ago been dubbed “a past master of
    reactionary deeds” for holding similar views on the relations
    between politics and economics!—Lenin

[10]The Germans even have a special expression,Nur-Gewerkschaftler, which means an advocate of the
    “pure trade union” struggle.—Lenin

[11]Note:This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[12]Letter of the Economists, inIskra, No. 12.—Lenin

[13]Rabocheye Dyelo, No. 10.—Lenin

[14]Neue Zeit, 1901-02, XX, I, No. 3, p. 79. The
    committee’s draft to which Kautsky refers was adopted by the
    Vienna Congress (at the end of last year) in a slightly amended
    form.—Lenin

[15]Note:This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[16]Note:This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[17]Present Tasks and Tactics of the Russian
    Social-Democracy, Geneva, 1898. Two letters toRabochaya Gazeta, written in 1897.—Lenin

[18]See present edition, Vol. 2, pp. 323—51.—Ed.

[19]In defending its first untruth (“we do not know to which young
    comrades Axelrod referred”),Rabocheye Dyeloadded a
    second, when it wrote in itsReply: “Since the review
    ofThe Taskswas published, tendencies have arisen, or
    become more or less clearly defined, among certain Russian
    Social-Democrats, towards economic one-sidedness, which
    represent a step backwards from the state of our movement as
    described inThe Tasks” (p. 9). This, in theReply, publishedin 1900. But the first issue
    ofRabocheye Dyelo(containing the review) appeared inApril 1899. Did Economism really arise only in 1899?
    No. The year 1899 saw the first protest of theRussianSocial-Democrats against Economism (the protest against theCredo). Economism arose in 1897, asRabocheye
    Dyelovery well knows, for already inNovember
    1898, V. I. was praising Rabochaya Mysl (see“Listok”
    Rabotnika, No. 9-10).—Lenin

[20]The “stages theory”, or the theory of “timid zigzags”, in the
    political struggle is expressed, for example, in this article,
    in the following way: “Political demands, which in their
    character are common to the whole of Russia, should, however, at
    first (this was written in August 1900!) correspond to the
    experience gained by the given stratum (sic!) of
    workers in the economic struggle. Only [!] on the basis of this
    experience can and should political agitation be taken up,”
    etc. (p. 11). On page 4, the author, protesting against what he
    regards as the absolutely unfounded charge of Economist heresy,
    pathetically exclaims: “What Social-Democrat does not know that
    according to the theories of Marx and Engels the economic
    interests of certain classes play a decisive role in history,
    and,consequently, that particularly the proletariat’s
    struggle for its economic interests must be of paramount
    importance in its class development and struggle for
    emancipation?” (Our italics.) The word “consequently” is
    completely irrelevant. The fact that economic interests play a
    decisive roledoes not in the least implythat the
    economic (i.e., trade union) struggle is of prime importance;
    for the most essential, the “decisive” interests of classes can
    be satisfiedonly byradicalpoliticalchanges
    in general. In particular the fundamental economic interests of
    the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution
    that will replace the dictatorshipof the bourgeoisie by the
    dictatorship of the proletariat. Krichevsky repeats the
    arguments of the “V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy” (viz.,
    that politics follows economics, etc.) and of the Bernsteinians
    of German Social-Democracy (e.g., by similar arguments Woltmann
    sought to prove that the workers must first of all acquire
    “economic power” before they can think about political
    revolution).—Lenin

[21]See present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 370—71.—Ed.

[22]See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 18.—Ed.

[23]“Ein Jahr der Verwirrung” (“A Year of Confusion”) is
    the title Mehring gave to the chapter of hisHistory of
    German Social-Democracyin which he describes the hesitancy
    and lack of determination displayed at first by the socialists in selecting
	the “tactics-as-plan” for the new situation.—Lenin

[24]Leading article inIskra, No. 1. (SeeCollected
    Works, Vol. 4, p. 369 —Ed.)—Lenin

[25]SeeCollected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 18-20.—Ed.

[26]Nor must it be forgotten that in solving “theoretically” the
	problem of terror, the Emancipation of Labour groupgeneralisedthe experience of the antecedent revolutionary movement.—Lenin

[27]The pamphletOn Agitationwas written by A. Kremer (later an
    organiser of the Bund) and edited by Y. 0. Tsederbaum (Martov) in Vilno in
    1894; it was at first circulated in handwritten and hectographed copies,
    but at the end of 1897 it was printed in Geneva and supplied with a preface
    and a concluding piece by P. B. Axelrod. The pamphlet summarised the
    experiences gained in Social-Democratic work in Vilno and exerted a great
    influence on Russian Social-Democrats, since it called on them to reject
    narrow study-circle propaganda and to go over to mass agitation among the
    workers on issues of their everyday needs and demands. It exaggerated the
    role of the purely economic struggle, however, to the detriment of
    political agitation on issues of general democratic demands, and was the
    embryo of the future “Economism”. P. B. Axelrod not ed the one-sidedness
    of the “Vilno Economism” in his concluding piece to the Geneva edition;
    G. V. Plekhanov made a critical analysis of the pamphletOn
    Agitationin hisOnce More on Socialism and the Political
    Struggle.

[28]Russkaya Starina(The Russian Antiquary)—a monthly
    magazine dealing with historical problems published in St. Petersburg from
    1870 to 1918.

[29]S. Peterburgsky Rabochy Listok(St.Petersburg Workers’
    Paper)—an illegal newspaper, organ of the St. Petersburg League of
    Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. Two issues appeared:
    No. 1 in February 1897 (dated January and mimeographed in Russia in an
    edition of 300—400 copies) and No. 2 in September 1897 in Geneva.

[30]A private meetingreferred to here was held in St. Petersburg
    between February 14 and 17 (February 26 and March 1), 1897. It was attended
    by V. I. Lenin, A. A. Vaneyev, G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, and other members of
    the St. Petersburg League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working
    Class, that is, by the “veterans” who had been released from prison for
    three days before being sent into exile to Siberia, as well as by the
    “young” leaders of the League of Struggle who had taken over the
    leadership of the League after Lenin’s arrest in December 1895.

[31]“Listok”Rabotnika(The Workingman’s
    Paper)—published in Geneva by the Union of Russian Social-Democrats
    Abroad from 1896 to 1899; altogether there appeared 10 issues. Issues 1—8
    were edited by the Emancipation of Labour group. But after the majority of
    the Union Abroad went over to “Economism”, the Emancipation of Labour
    group refused to continue editing the paper. Nos. 9 and 10 were issued by a
    new editorial board set up by the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad.

[32]The “article by V. I.”—an article by V. P. Ivanshin.

[38]V. V.—pseudonym of V. P. Vorontsov, an ideologist of liberal
    Narodism in the eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century. By the
    “V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy” Lenin understands the
    “Economists” who represented the opportunist trend in the Russian
    Social-Democratic movement.

[33]The Hirsch-Duncker Unionswere established in Germany in 1868
    by Hirsch and Duncker, two bourgeois liberals. They preached the “harmony
    of class interests”, drew the workers away from the revolutionary class
    struggle against the bourgeoisie, and restricted the role of the trade
    unions to that of mutual benefit societies and educational bodies.

[34]The Self-Emancipation of the Workers Group—a small group of
    “Economists” formed in St. Petersburg in the autumn of 1898; it existed
    for only a few months and published a manifesto setting forth its aims
    [published inNakanune(On the Eve) in London], a set of
    rules and several leaflets addressed to the workers.

[35]Nakanune(On the Eve)—a journal expressing Narodnik
    views. It was published in Russian in London from January 1899 to February
    1902—altogether 37 issues. The journal was a rallying point for
    representatives of various petty-bourgeois parties.

[36]G. V. Plekhanov published his well-known workThe Development of
    the Monist View of Historylegally in St. Petersburg in 1895 under the
    pseudonym ofN. Beltov.

[37]Nartsis Tuporylov(Narcissus Blunt-Snout) was the
    pseudonym under which Y. O. Martov published his satirical poem “Hymn of
    the Contemporary Russian Socialist” inZarya, No. 1,
    April 1901. The “Hymn” ridiculed the “Economists” 
	and their adaptations to spontaneous events.